Clallam County's Charter Review and Ethics Committee turned July 24 to whether county commissioners should serve on nonprofit or quasi-governmental boards that may receive county funding, with members and a public commenter urging clearer rules on recusal and possible limits.

Public commenter John Worthington urged the committee to "change them back," arguing commissioners should not serve on boards that both seek county money and make policy for those organizations. "To serve on the board where they are making policy when the NGOs are expecting to get money from the county, that is totally out of line," Worthington said during public comment.

Committee members framed the policy question as a balance between (1) enabling commissioners to represent county interests at regional or nonprofit tables and (2) preventing conflicts when a commissioner's board membership could affect county funding decisions. Several members said they favor recusal when a vote would directly benefit an organization on which a commissioner serves, but they stopped short of endorsing a blanket ban.

What the committee asked staff to do: Members directed staff to compile lists of the NGOs and boards commissioners currently serve on in an official capacity, to identify which of those organizations receive county funds or enter contracts with the county, and to draft concise code language addressing conflicts of interest and required recusals. The group discussed state law (RCW references were read during the meeting) as a baseline and agreed to align county language with applicable statutes.

Quotations and examples: Several members used the YMCA and the Economic Development Council as examples where board membership could pose a conflict if the county awards grants or contracts. One commissioner summarized the committee's practical approach: if a commissioner sits on a board and a county funding decision directly affects that board, the commissioner should recuse themselves; other members said that approach should be codified.

Ending: The committee left the question open for legal review and drafting and asked staff to return recommended language and the NGO inventory at the Aug. 12 meeting.